The Washington Schools Energy Efficiency Projects Bill, also known as Referendum 52, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Washington as a legislatively-referred state statute, where it was defeated. The measure would have called for a $500 million bond that lawmakers estimated would create 40,000 new jobs in public school and government building renovations; similar to a 2009 proposal that stalled in the legislature. In contrast to a 2009 proposed bill, which lawmakers worried would harm the state's bond rating because of the large amount ($2 billion), the proposed bill was smaller in size and would not add liability to the general fund, according to legislators.[1][2] According to the proposed legislation, bond proceeds would have been spent on replacing roofs, installing insulation, cleaning mold-infested buildings and making energy-saving improvements. These improvements would have taken place on school campuses and state offices.[3]

Election results

Text of measure

Statement of Subject: The legislature has passed Engrossed House Bill No. 2561, concerning authorizing and funding bonds for energy efficiency projects in schools.

Concise Description: This bill would authorize bonds to finance construction and repair projects increasing energy efficiency in public schools and higher education buildings, and continue the sales tax on bottled water otherwise expiring in 2013.

Background

Effects if measure passes

The purpose of R-52 was to ask voters to issue bonds that would finance energy efficiency projects for the state's K-12 and higher education systems. A total of $505 million in bonds would be issued by the state if the voters approved R-52[6].

Money for the projects would have been raised by selling bonds. The revenue from the bond sales would have been deposited into the state's treasury[6].

School districts that pursued funds under R-52, would have been required to apply with the state to obtain funding. All applications would have been approved on a competitive basis using criteria set under R-52[6]. At least five percent of the grants would have been awarded to school districts with less than 1,000 students if R-52 was approved[6].

However, the measure was defeated by voters.

Conflicts with I-1107

R-52 conflicted with I-1107 because the initiative reduced the state's ability to pay off general obligation bonds through sales tax revenues. I-1107 called for the end of sales taxes on candy, bottled water, processed food, and carbonated beverages. R-52 called for a temporary expansion of the state's sales tax on bottled water until 2013[7]. The approval of I-1107 ended the sales taxes on candy, processed food, and carbonated beverages[7]. If both R-52 and I-1107 had been approved, the state may have found difficulties in paying for R-52 when four sources of sales tax revenue were abolished by I-1107.

Support

The measure was proposed by Rep. Hans Dunshee of Snohomish County. "We’ve got to do something besides just balance the budget. We’ve got to do something about the jobs and the economy," said Rep. Hans Dunshee.[1] In March 2010, shortly after the state's unemployment figures were released, Dunshee argued that the state needed to create jobs because "Over 27 percent of the construction industry is sitting on its hands."[8]

Dunshee argued that the bill would have: created about 38,000 jobs in a six-year period; permanently reduced energy bills in schools; and increased sales tax revenues starting in 2011.[3]

Opposition

According to reports there wasn't an organized opposition. However, some argued that the proposed measure would impose too much debt on the state and wouldn't create the jobs or provide the energy savings as proposed. Rep. Judy Warnick said, "R52 is not going to come through with the results that the proponents think it's going to. It's like maxing out our credit cards and using it for disposable items, like light bulbs and windows."[10]

According to the secretary of state's website, opponents additionally argued that, "The figure of 30,000 new construction jobs is drastically overestimated. Opponents say the state econmists really estimate that 5,700 new short-term construction jobs are more likely at the cost of $162,000 in tax money for each job."[11]

Media editorial positions

Support

The Stranger supported the Referred Bill 52. "By passing Referendum 52, voters would allow the state to expand its bonding capacity to issue $505 million in bonds to pay for energy-efficiency improvements in schools. Extending a sales tax on bottled water pays for the bonds; if that tax gets repealed (see I-1107), other money from the state's general fund pays off the bill. Not only would these improvements save energy (which saves the planet and saves the state money), they'd create jobs," said the editorial board.[12]

Publicola supported the proposed measure "..since the project has to save money in energy costs, it doesn’t only decrease our state’s energy costs—it also means school districts that qualify are going to be spending less money turning the lights on and more on teachers and textbooks...Thirty thousand jobs, better schools, and energy savings. No-Brainer. PubliCola picks Yes on R-52," said the editorial board.[13]

Opposition

The Yakima Herald-Republic opposed Referred Bill 52. "The stated intent is to create energy-efficient schools, but it would create a financial burden on future generations, the very people that the referendum purports to serve," said the editorial board.[14]

The Seattle Times was opposed to R-52. In an editorial, the board said they opposed the proposed measure because there was no accountability or reassurance that the funded projects were effective and did what they claimed. Additionally, the board said they were concerned about the costs considering that I-1107 (also on the ballot) may eliminate needed revenue. "If the tax on bottled water goes away, the Legislature will have to find some other money to pay off the bonds," they said.[15]

The Tacoma News Tribune was opposed to R-52. "If good intentions were money in the bank, R-52 might be worth passing. But there are no guarantees that this measure will deliver the promised job creation, energy savings or, most crucially, protection of the state’s finances...R-52 offers too much risk for not enough potential reward. The News Tribune editorial board recommends a no vote," said the editorial board.[16]

The Kitsap Sun opposed the measure. "It would add nearly $1 billion to the state’s long-term debt load, and would turn the temporary tax on bottled water into a permanent one. Also, this so-called “healthy schools” measure only requires that 5 percent of the money go to K-12 schools, and no specific energy efficiency standards are required. R-52 is too costly and of arguable effectiveness. Vote 'no,'," said the board.[17]

The Wenatchee World was opposed. "This is wrong time to go further in debt, and we should know by now that permanent jobs are not so easily created. Everyone senses that. The point should be emphasized with a no vote on Referendum 52," said the board.[18]

Reports and analyses

Referendum 52 authorizes the issuance of $505 million in state general obligation bonds to fund capital improvements for energy efficiency in buildings owned by public school districts and public higher education institutions. Twenty-nine-year debt service costs are estimated to total $937 million, for an average annual state cost of $32.3 million. Other state costs are estimated to be $2.2 million annually through fiscal year 2015. The sales tax on bottled water is estimated to increase State General Fund revenues an annual average of $39.8 million and increase local government revenues an annual average of $14.9 million.

Polls

An August 26-August 29, 2010 poll of 650 likely voters by Survey USA showed that 34% of voters were certain they would support Referendum 52, 42% were certain they would oppose the measure, and 24% were undecided.[19][20]

A September 30-October 3, 2010 poll of 639 likely voters by Survey USA revealed that 28% supported the proposed measure, while 45% were opposed and 27% were undecided. The poll was sponsored by KING-TV Seattle. The margin of error was +/- 4 percentage points.[21]

Legend

Position is ahead and at or over 50% Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

Date of Poll

Pollster

In favor

Opposed

Undecided

Number polled

August 26 - 29, 2010

Survey USA

34%

42%

24%

650

Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 2010

Survey USA

28%

45%

27%

639

Lawsuits

On May 10, 2010 the Association of Washington Business filed a lawsuit with the Thurston County Superior Court. The association asked to change the language scheduled to appear on the November ballot. According to the filing, the organization contended that the legislature omitted information. Specifically, the group pointed to the fact that a temporary sales tax on bottled water would be made permanent if the measure was approved by voters. A hearing was scheduled for May 28.[22][23]

The Association of Washington Business proposed the court use the following language:

The legislature has passed Engrossed House Bill No. 2561 concerning funding energy efficiency projects in schools and raising taxes therefore. This bill would authorize bonds to finance energy efficiency improvements in schools and higher education buildings, and make the sales tax on bottled water permanent.

Path to the ballot

In order to place the measure on the statewide ballot, the measure required at least a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. On March 16, 2010 the House re-approved the bill after a vote of 54-39; moving it forward to the Senate for the special session. The bill had previously died in the Senate during the regular session.[3][24]